BARU Vs. JEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been directed against an order dated November 14, 1983 passed by the Sub Judge IInd Class, Kaithal, whereby he disposed of two applications: one moved by the petitioners (Baru and others who are the defendants/ Judgment-debtors) and the other one moved by the respondent (Jeet Singh, who is plaintiff/Decree-holder).

(2.) The respondent filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption which was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated March 7, 1983 and he was directed to deposit the pre-emption amount of Rs. 23,902/- less 1/5th, the already deposited amount, on or before May 15, 1983. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, an appeal was filed by the petitioners, namely, the defendants before the learned trial Court. It is not disputed that the appellate Court vide order dated March 31, 1983 stayed execution of the pre-emption decree besides at the same time observing that "if necessary, time will be given to him (the plaintiff-respondent) for depositing the pre-emption money at the time of final disposal of the appeal." The appeal filed by the petitioners was. however, dismissed vide judgment and decree dated August 29, 1983 and as stated by the learned counsel for the parties the same has already attained finality.

(3.) It is also not in dispute that the respondent-decree holder while depositing the amount of Rs.18,960/- on May 12, 1983, namely, before the expiry of the time-limits given to him by the trial Court for depositing the pre-emption amount, also deposited the compensation for the standing crops on October 4, 1983. After the dismissal of the appeal and having realised that in terms of the pre-emption decree passed in his favour, the petitioner was required to deposit Rs.19,702/- but he had deposited Rs.18,960/- only and, therefore, he moved an application before the trial Court for grant of extension of time to deposit the balance amount of Rs.742/-. A counter application was moved by the petitioners with a prayer that the warrant of possession issued against them may be recalled as the preemption decree was conditional and the plaintiff-respondent has failed to comply with the said condition and as such his suit was deemed to have been dismissed. Both the aforementioned applications were heard together and have been disposed of by the learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Kaithal vide his impugned order dated November 14, 1983 vide which he dismissed the application moved by the petitioners whereas the one moved by the respondent for permission to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 742/- even beyond the time given to him to do so in the original decree dated March 7,1983, was accepted, however, with liberty to the defendants-Judgment debtors to receive the same. Aggrieved by this order, the present revision petition has been filed by the defendants/judgment-debtors.